In a column on the conservative website Red County, former California GOP chair Ron Nehring argues that the state’s “best shot to influence” who will be on the presidential ballot next year “could be eviscerated” by AB80, which was authored by Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Cupertino.

Fong argues that the move would save the deficit-plagued state and financially challenged counties millions of dollars. That’s because in 2008, the Golden State moved its primary up to February (in the past, it has taken place in either June or March) in an attempt to increase its influence on the national presidential contest. The change, however, resulted in California holding three separate statewide elections in 2008, according to Fong, “imposing a burden on our electorate and costing the state and local governments almost $100 million.”

But Nehring thinks the reasons run deeper.

“Should we believe the Democrats are motivated purely by being the party of fiscal responsibility on this issue? Not quite,” he wrote. “Scheduling a state’s presidential primary is a key strategic decision often made to maximize the state’s importance in the election of a presidential nominee. It directly impacts whether a presidential candidate needs to focus on the federal issues impacting the state. … With (President) Barack Obama’s renomination guaranteed, California Democrats will be no more or less relevant if the state votes late in the process. Republicans, on the other hand, stand to be seriously disadvantaged by current plans to hold the primary so late it is virtually certain the nomination contest will be over.

Nehring goes on to argue that come 2016 — when Obama is termed out — majority Democrats will simply move the primary back up to March.

The issue clearly has legs among members of the California GOP — moving the primary date to March was part of the list of demands Republican Senate leaders gave to Gov. Jerry Brown last week as part of budget negotiations.